§ Mr. Whiteheadasked the Minister of Transport if he will indicate the percentage and amount by which claim 14 of the M5 motorway contract, when revalued by Messrs. Corderoy at the request of his Department, differed from the figures presented by Freeman Fox and Partners; and when he proposes to go to arbitration to resolve the dispute over the final settlement of the claims.
769W
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeThe hon. Member will recall that the M5 motorway contract was the subject of a report—HC 18–to the House in November 1975 by the Department of the Environment. The earlier stages of the investigation of this matter established that there had been no improper conduct, and the only matter outstanding has been the amount payable under claim 14 of the contract, to which he now refers.
As a cross-check on this claim a special assessment was commissioned from Messrs. Corderoy. Messrs. Corderoy's assessment is about 7 per cent.—£111,000—less than the comparable sum for earthworks and claim 14 included by the Engineer in his final account. It should, however, be noted that although the independent valuation has been based upon assumptions which appear reasonable and is consistent with the best professional opinion and practice, no precision in these matters is possible; nor was an identical result anticipated.
I draw two inferences. First, the public interest has been conscientiously served by Mr. Neil James' action in bringing his concern in this matter to the attention of the Department in the first place and then to that of the hon. Member and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) with the result that this further assessment has been made and examined.
Secondly, however, the difference between the assessment and the amount included by the Engineer in the claim is not such as to justify the expenditure of further public money in an attempt, which would be unlikely to succeed, to substitute for the latter a reduced payment to the contractor. I do not propose to take the matter any further.